From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FSL_HELO_FAKE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73313C0044D for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2786E2051A for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Qs7KHkvG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2786E2051A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B704F6B0005; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AFB3F6B0006; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9EBF86B0007; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0056.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.56]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8261A6B0005 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E02D181AEF0B for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:43:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76603157652.12.money95_3df41fb4e9534 X-HE-Tag: money95_3df41fb4e9534 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7397 Received: from mail-pg1-f182.google.com (mail-pg1-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f182.google.com with SMTP id b22so4804217pgb.6 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 18:43:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YPrE3TC9cvR5eow6UPNLAi081AyK8g0VypG98zq/3rI=; b=Qs7KHkvGrxolIHTiAhyQGd2igPK8/UgI2BqNWe8908q+A6DbfydjZ89uzH8KvnLNG7 bxKuwqDsn/gl0UbTRoIEIZgf6ViRSq9GQRIrCNibxeR52oKm7yVGsTqWvBckF5PHJ5Hw WjfnQU+Q+v973TV+wdXPdsOtge82uAMlVNlwqb0OqohYOi47Kht7dzaKMteRyAVcRBSp 868NkrAAF0c8BBzyHhbBv8B12BDOldVVIZCDBQwFK5mmln13hICY8/+hhp5dHjlgoRnM ezqNu3oeHGObMUlKU2uaEYQ+soCYl5bKQt2P0xnFoSM5k6hTgmmCYfVgrhlulFRMqIFD rWRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=YPrE3TC9cvR5eow6UPNLAi081AyK8g0VypG98zq/3rI=; b=MO+1e2zbYxmbYpyTW2Nc72mASNt44z4K21whFU39WsVf+pWgjkhh2nrzLAvGmlhbqr RFFQ+GZzPGW7yDmBPrAC+t9tdALyCDwbRY3/1Ei/QjaQZmDMkAbCFbnrnOiJ83EthBaW oxuy4BKp2Bp1ImxR7gH0Yv4DYeEZx/Y1kx+GjJlReUD5WkcNhAkttcGOpNTrpDiHTLzt nSVus4AMnjF1aUBZr0KH/J6bp+Nc6BNuJDqPKFjQRoHhrX1HDyXuyfwxjoxq/KZp2Rn3 WRjVRf49XZHRCr5BhQJYCwGsdYB5XfY/A1ukAniUmVm9g5uYU8NmWAjU8FUehVK2nssq tq4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3+U4s+PnZqciYfMS1OeiAir0j5zXmz9xZFqhINjk5MCfaeDzv/ 5EDNalmJWmeM7sDYxz7UbKU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuLfSSQxDO7LSW23UwCfFLT6vWrf39N6cgbnHenoukHb5KoqNoLNE7b8ejtHEZzZijNiDuTFw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:1f58:: with SMTP id q24mr2755192pgm.334.1584409424318; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 18:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2620:15c:211:1:3e01:2939:5992:52da]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d84sm1031512pfd.197.2020.03.16.18.43.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 18:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 18:43:40 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Michal Hocko Cc: Jann Horn , Linux-MM , kernel list , Daniel Colascione , Dave Hansen , "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: interaction of MADV_PAGEOUT with CoW anonymous mappings? Message-ID: <20200317014340.GA73302@google.com> References: <20200312082248.GS23944@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200312201602.GA68817@google.com> <20200312204155.GE23944@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200313020851.GD68817@google.com> <20200313080546.GA21007@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200313205941.GA78185@google.com> <20200316092052.GD11482@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200316092052.GD11482@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:20:52AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 13-03-20 13:59:41, Minchan Kim wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 09:05:46AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 12-03-20 19:08:51, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:41:55PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Thu 12-03-20 13:16:02, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 09:22:48AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > From eca97990372679c097a88164ff4b3d7879b0e127 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > > > > From: Michal Hocko > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:04:35 +0100 > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: do not allow MADV_PAGEOUT for CoW pages > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jann has brought up a very interesting point [1]. While shared pages are > > > > > > > excluded from MADV_PAGEOUT normally, CoW pages can be easily reclaimed > > > > > > > that way. This can lead to all sorts of hard to debug problems. E.g. > > > > > > > performance problems outlined by Daniel [2]. There are runtime > > > > > > > environments where there is a substantial memory shared among security > > > > > > > domains via CoW memory and a easy to reclaim way of that memory, which > > > > > > > MADV_{COLD,PAGEOUT} offers, can lead to either performance degradation > > > > > > > in for the parent process which might be more privileged or even open > > > > > > > side channel attacks. The feasibility of the later is not really clear > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure it's a good idea to mention performance stuff because > > > > > > it's rather arguble. You and Johannes already pointed it out when I sbumit > > > > > > early draft which had shared page filtering out logic due to performance > > > > > > reason. You guys suggested the shared pages has higher chance to be touched > > > > > > so that if it's really hot pages, that whould keep in the memory. I agree. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the hot memory is likely to be referenced but the point was an > > > > > unexpected latency because of the major fault. I have to say that I have > > > > > > > > I don't understand your point here. If it's likely to be referenced > > > > among several processes, it doesn't have the major fault latency. > > > > What's your point here? > > > > > > a) the particular CoW page might be cold enough to be reclaimed and b) > > > > If it is, that means it's *cold* so it's really worth to be reclaimed. > > > > > nothing really prevents the MADV_PAGEOUT to be called faster than the > > > reference bit being readded. > > > > Yeb, that's undesirable. I should admit it was not intended when I implemented > > PAGEOUT. The thing is page_check_references clears access bit of pte for every > > process are sharing the page so that two times MADV_PAGEOUT from a process could > > evict the page. That's the really bug. > > I do not really think this is a bug. This is a side effect of the > reclaim process and we do not really want MADV_{PAGEOUT,COLD} behave No, that's the bug since we didn't consider the side effect. > differently here because then the behavior would be even harder to No, I do want to have difference because it's per-process hint. IOW, what he know is for only his context, not others so it shouldn't clean others' pte. That makes difference between LRU aging and the hint. > understand. It's not hard to understand.. MADV_PAGEOUT should consider only his context since it's per-process hint(Even, he couldn't know others' context) so it shouldn't bother others. Actually, Dave's suggestion is correct to fix the issue if there was no isse with side channel attack. However, due to the attack issue, page_mapcount could prevent the problem effectively. That's why I am not against of the patch now since it fixes the bug as well as vulnerability.